But this is the Geronimo project - so do we need to support both of these things? i.e. can't we just have a simple POJO hierarchy which merges the standard + geronimo POJOs together for simplicity? It'll be much easier, take less code & require much less testing of the marshalling code.
So I'd like to understand the use case for why we can't just have POJOs for Geronimo's descriptors - afterall all the additional Geronimo properties can just be ignored when working with just standard J2EE descriptor stuff.
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 09:50 am, Greg Wilkins wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote:On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 02:02 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:Jeremy Boynes wrote:My god Greg, get a real IDE, and click the implement interface button, or click the delegate button and done with it.
> I think a concrete class hierarchy is easiest here, with the Geronimo
> POJOs extending the Standard ones. That way tools can work with standard
> objects or geronimo objects as they like (provided they remain
> consistent) - this fits Aaron's use cases and I think simplifies the
> structure.
That approach is going to result in some really ugly duplication of code and hundreds of extra implementation methods.
you're joking right???
This is not just about code duplication - I was just responding to the
suggestion that my proposal is more complex or more code. The main issue
that I started talking about is that the type hierarchy is wrong.
Eg. If we don't have a common geronimo.ejb.EJB class for Session, Entity
and Message, then we can't write any code that deals with these beans in
common - eg we are going to have to write the marshalling code 3 times, etc. etc.
If the geronimo classes don't implement/extend the standard classes then
we can't pass them into any class that takes the standard classes.
So I am not proposing change based on code volume - I'm proposing change
because the design is currently not correct.
whatever.... I give up
James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
